CLAIM: Money raised is dedicated to school funding.
FACT: Money is in fact not dedicated to school funding.
There are no guarantees that this money will ever reach classrooms to benefit our hardworking teachers and students.
FACT: Money is in fact not dedicated to school funding.
There are no guarantees that this money will ever reach classrooms to benefit our hardworking teachers and students.
CLAIM: Funding from Amendment 66 cannot be used to backfill PERA.
FACT: There are no guarantees that school districts won’t use the money to backfill PERA.
At the state level, the money will not be used for PERA, this is true. There are no guarantees that these funds cannot, at the district level where money is fungible, be used to backfill PERA. With a $23.5 billion PERA shortfall, the likelihood is that these funds will, in fact, be used to supplement required PERA contributions.
FACT: There are no guarantees that school districts won’t use the money to backfill PERA.
At the state level, the money will not be used for PERA, this is true. There are no guarantees that these funds cannot, at the district level where money is fungible, be used to backfill PERA. With a $23.5 billion PERA shortfall, the likelihood is that these funds will, in fact, be used to supplement required PERA contributions.
CLAIM: We’ll be raising almost a billion dollars for underfunded schools
FACT: There are absolutely no guarantees in the proposal that money will land in the classrooms for teachers and students.
FACT: There are absolutely no guarantees in the proposal that money will land in the classrooms for teachers and students.
CLAIM: With Amendment 66, class sizes will be smaller.
FACT: There are no guarantees that these funds will ever reach classrooms to benefit our students and hardworking teachers.
FACT: There are no guarantees that these funds will ever reach classrooms to benefit our students and hardworking teachers.
CLAIM: With Amendment 66, Colorado students will excel with more opportunities and smaller class sizes
FACT: There are no guarantees that this Amendment will reach classrooms, and more money does not automatically equal better results.
Many districts are performing great with current funding levels – Cherry Creek’s CFO, Guy Belleville, testified in Senate Education Committee to that fact. Another example – Washington, D.C.’s public school system spends the most per pupil in the country at $29,409, but have consistently been one of the worst-performing public school systems in the country.
During debate in the General Assembly, Republicans put forth amendments to tie funding to student performance, in order to encourage reform, innovation and improvement in student performance. Sen. Johnston said that he considered an idea like this while crafting the bill, but discarded it because it creates “perverse” incentives. In other words, it creates competition which unions have consistently opposed despite proven results. Just giving schools more money with no strings attached will not improve the public education system.
FACT: There are no guarantees that this Amendment will reach classrooms, and more money does not automatically equal better results.
Many districts are performing great with current funding levels – Cherry Creek’s CFO, Guy Belleville, testified in Senate Education Committee to that fact. Another example – Washington, D.C.’s public school system spends the most per pupil in the country at $29,409, but have consistently been one of the worst-performing public school systems in the country.
During debate in the General Assembly, Republicans put forth amendments to tie funding to student performance, in order to encourage reform, innovation and improvement in student performance. Sen. Johnston said that he considered an idea like this while crafting the bill, but discarded it because it creates “perverse” incentives. In other words, it creates competition which unions have consistently opposed despite proven results. Just giving schools more money with no strings attached will not improve the public education system.
CLAIM: Amendment 66 will help restore the programs and extracurricular activities, like gym and music classes, that were lost due to budget cuts.
FACT: There is nothing in the bill to guarantee that the money will go to the classroom.
In past years the state’s education fund has been raided to cover deficits when needed. There is also nothing preventing it from funding PERA (the Public Employees’ Retirement Association), which is $20 billion in debt. There is also nothing in the bill that actually provides for extracurricular activities.
FACT: There is nothing in the bill to guarantee that the money will go to the classroom.
In past years the state’s education fund has been raided to cover deficits when needed. There is also nothing preventing it from funding PERA (the Public Employees’ Retirement Association), which is $20 billion in debt. There is also nothing in the bill that actually provides for extracurricular activities.
CLAIM: Amendment 66 will hold teachers and principals them accountable for student achievement.
FACT: There are no measures in the bill that hold anyone accountable for achievement.
We can all agree that great teachers and principals are an important classroom factor for student’s success. Our best educators should be rewarded and we should help them be successful. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the bill that ensures money will go to the classroom.
Teacher and Leadership Investment (TLI) should actually invest in improving teacher and school leader effectiveness; however much of it goes to administrative and overhead costs for teachers, not students, and is thus not tied to any sort of achievement/performance measure.
During debate in the General Assembly, Republicans put forth several amendments that included increasing starting teacher’s salaries in order to recruit and retain the best and the brightest candidates, increasing teacher’s salaries for those teaching a high-percentage of at-risk students, and to add a teacher-in-residency program to give student teachers more classroom time. All would have improved the quality of schools and teachers, and all, unfortunately, were voted down by the Democrats.
FACT: There are no measures in the bill that hold anyone accountable for achievement.
We can all agree that great teachers and principals are an important classroom factor for student’s success. Our best educators should be rewarded and we should help them be successful. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the bill that ensures money will go to the classroom.
Teacher and Leadership Investment (TLI) should actually invest in improving teacher and school leader effectiveness; however much of it goes to administrative and overhead costs for teachers, not students, and is thus not tied to any sort of achievement/performance measure.
During debate in the General Assembly, Republicans put forth several amendments that included increasing starting teacher’s salaries in order to recruit and retain the best and the brightest candidates, increasing teacher’s salaries for those teaching a high-percentage of at-risk students, and to add a teacher-in-residency program to give student teachers more classroom time. All would have improved the quality of schools and teachers, and all, unfortunately, were voted down by the Democrats.
CLAIM: Schools will have the resources to provide more classroom time.
FACT: There are no guarantees that this money will ever reach classrooms.
FACT: There are no guarantees that this money will ever reach classrooms.
CLAIM: The Innovation Grant Fund will provide additional innovation for schools.
FACT: The Innovation Grant Fund is overseen by a board that will pick winners and losers with no oversight and the ability to distribute money to pet projects.
A majority of the board will be appointed by the Governor and will likely reflect the existing powers-that-be in education. This board is not designed to be innovative as it is made up of the education establishment that has consistently been slow to embrace change.
The CDE (more education establishment) is in charge of writing the grant application requirements and recommending winners and thus, will oversee the critical phases of the project. The Innovation Board will simply be rubber stamping the CDE’s chosen projects. A new board is unnecessary. The State Board of Education (an elected body) could do a better job of independently administering these grants.
FACT: The Innovation Grant Fund is overseen by a board that will pick winners and losers with no oversight and the ability to distribute money to pet projects.
A majority of the board will be appointed by the Governor and will likely reflect the existing powers-that-be in education. This board is not designed to be innovative as it is made up of the education establishment that has consistently been slow to embrace change.
The CDE (more education establishment) is in charge of writing the grant application requirements and recommending winners and thus, will oversee the critical phases of the project. The Innovation Board will simply be rubber stamping the CDE’s chosen projects. A new board is unnecessary. The State Board of Education (an elected body) could do a better job of independently administering these grants.
CLAIM: Money raised will go to effectively implement recent education reforms and provide opportunities for all educators continue to learn and improve.
FACT: On the whole, these reforms have already been implemented, and will continue to be implemented whether this tax passes or not.
A large chunk of the money (about one-third) is earmarked to implement reforms that have been in place for a few years (educator effectiveness, school accreditation, new standardized tests, etc). It’s certainly accurate to say that this tax will fund those reforms, but it is misleading to imply that the reforms hinge on the tax passing. As a side note, one of the biggest funders of this ballot initiative, the CEA, is suing to undo a key reform (teacher tenure, or SB 191).
FACT: On the whole, these reforms have already been implemented, and will continue to be implemented whether this tax passes or not.
A large chunk of the money (about one-third) is earmarked to implement reforms that have been in place for a few years (educator effectiveness, school accreditation, new standardized tests, etc). It’s certainly accurate to say that this tax will fund those reforms, but it is misleading to imply that the reforms hinge on the tax passing. As a side note, one of the biggest funders of this ballot initiative, the CEA, is suing to undo a key reform (teacher tenure, or SB 191).